CWE-1249: Application-Level Admin Tool with Inconsistent View of Underlying Operating System
Weakness ID: 1249
Vulnerability Mapping:ALLOWEDThis CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities Abstraction:
BaseBase - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
View customized information:
Shows the description and diagram, platforms, mitigations, consequences, relationships, memberships, and content history.For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom Filter
More information is available — Please edit the custom filter or select a different filter.
Description
The product provides an application for administrators to manage parts of the underlying operating system, but the application does not accurately identify all of the relevant entities or resources that exist in the OS; that is, the application's model of the OS's state is inconsistent with the OS's actual state.
Extended Description
Many products provide web-based applications or other interfaces for managing the underlying operating system. This is common with cloud, network access devices, home networking, and other systems. When the management tool does not accurately represent what is in the OS - such as user accounts - then the administrator might not see suspicious activities that would be noticed otherwise.
For example, numerous systems utilize a web
front-end for administrative control. They also offer
the ability to add, alter, and drop users with various
privileges as it relates to the functionality of the
system. A potential architectural weakness may exist
where the user information reflected in the web
interface does not mirror the users in the underlying
operating system. Many web UI or REST APIs use the
underlying operating system for authentication; the
system's logic may also track an additional set of
user capabilities within configuration files
and datasets for authorization capabilities. When
there is a discrepancy between the user information in
the UI or REST API's interface system and the
underlying operating system's user listing, this may
introduce a weakness into the system. For example, if an
attacker compromises the OS and adds a new user
account - a "ghost" account - then the attacker could escape detection if
the management tool does not list the newly-added
account.
This discrepancy could be exploited in several ways:
A rogue admin could insert a new account into a system that will
persist if they are terminated or wish to take action on a system that
cannot be directly associated with them.
An attacker can leverage a separate command injection attack available through the web interface to insert a ghost account with shell privileges such as ssh.
An attacker can leverage existing web interface APIs, manipulated in such a way that a new user is inserted into the operating system, and the user web account is either partially created or not at all.
An attacker could create an admin
account which is viewable by an administrator,
use this account to create the ghost account,
delete logs and delete the first created admin
account.
Many of these attacker scenarios can be
realized by leveraging separate vulnerabilities
related to XSS, command injection, authentication
bypass, or logic flaws on the various systems.
Alternate Terms
Ghost in the Shell
Common Consequences
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
Impact
Details
Varies by Context
Scope: Access Control
Hide Activities
Scope: Accountability
Unexpected State
Scope: Other
Potential Mitigations
Phase(s)
Mitigation
Architecture and Design
Ensure that the admin tool refreshes its model of the underlying OS on a regular basis, and note any inconsistencies with configuration files or other data sources that are expected to have the same data.
Relationships
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf, Overlaps, and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Complete Weakness Hierarchy" (View-1000)
Nature
Type
ID
Name
ChildOf
Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
Improper Preservation of Consistency Between Independent Representations of Shared State
Modes
Of Introduction
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
Phase(s)
Note
Architecture and Design
The design might assume that the underlying OS does not change.
Implementation
Assumptions about the underlying OS might be hard-coded into the application or otherwise in external data stores in a way that is not updated when the OS's state changes.
Applicable Platforms
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Type
Applicable Platforms
Notes
Languages
Class: Not Language-Specific
(Undetermined Prevalence)
Operating Systems
Class: Not OS-Specific
(Undetermined Prevalence)
Technologies
Class: Web Based
(Undetermined Prevalence)
Demonstrative Examples
Example 1
Suppose that an attacker successfully gains root privileges on a Linux system and adds a new 'user2' account:
This new user2 account would not be noticed on the web interface, if the interface does not refresh its data of available users.
It could be argued that for this specific example, an attacker with root privileges would be likely to compromise the admin tool or otherwise feed it with false data. However, this example shows how the discrepancy in critical data can help attackers to escape detection.
Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality
Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
Memberships
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Nature
Type
ID
Name
MemberOf
Grouping - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason
Acceptable-Use
Rationale
This CWE entry is at the Base level of abstraction, which is a preferred level of abstraction for mapping to the root causes of vulnerabilities.
Comments
Carefully read both the name and description to ensure that this mapping is an appropriate fit. Do not try to 'force' a mapping to a lower-level Base/Variant simply to comply with this preferred level of abstraction.
Description
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
